R. Ravi Alias Ulsoor Ravi - Petitioner @HASH State of Karnataka and Others

Mr. A.S. Bopanna, J. - The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 25-3-2011 passed by respondent No. 3 at Annexure-A and is consequently seeking that the respondents 3 and 4 be directed to delete the name of the petitioner in the rowdy list maintained by respondent 4-police station.

The petitioner claims to be a M.A. Graduate and is employed after his education and is also carrying on independent business. According to the petitioner, though he was not involved in any criminal activities, he was wrongly implicated in the crime registered which was ultimately considered in S.C. No. 471 of 2003. The judgment parsed in the said case dated 30-5-2013 is referred to at Annexure-B. In that light, it is contended that the order dated 25-3-2011, by which the name of the petitioner is included in the rowdy list was based on the alleged involvement of the petitioner in Crime No. 472 of 2002 which was tried in S.C. No. 471 of 2003. It is contended that by the judgment, the Court below has acquitted the petitioner yet, the name of the petitioner is continued in the rowdy list. In that light, it is contended that the order dated 25-3-2011 be quashed and the respondents be directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list.

The respondents have filed their objection statement. It is contended that apart from the case that is referred to by the petitioner, the very nature of the activities of the petitioner is to indulge in such unruly behaviour in the area, to which reference is made in the objection statement, more particularly, the incident on 3-3-2013 when a lady had made the telephone call to the police station, The cases in Crime Nos. 138 of 2013 and 91 of 2014 under Section 110(e) and 110(g) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 are referred to. In that light, it is contended that the conduct of the petitioner is of the nature which is contained under Order No. 1059 of the Police Manual and therefore, the continuation of the name of the petitioner in the rowdy register is justified.

In the light of the averments, I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner while seeking that the order dated 25-3-2011 be quashed would rely on the order passed in W.P. No. 27772 of 2011, dated 27-6-2012 which relates to one of the accused in the very same proceedings in S.C. No. 471 of 2003. It is contended that even before the acquittal was made in the said case, this Court had found it fit to direct that the name be deleted since, in any event, surveillance could be maintained.

The learned Counsel has also relied on the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 6255 of 2012, dated 14-3-2013 and the decision in the case of Deva alias Devaraj alias Devadas Devaiah and others v. State of Karnataka and others, 2000 (4) Kar. L.J. S.N. 24 : ILR 2000 Kar. 491. In that light, it is contended that this Court has held that the name in the rowdy register cannot be continued unless, the conduct of a person is of such nature as contained under Order 1059 of the Police Manual. It is therefore contended that when in the instant case, the order dated 25-3-2011 was passed based on the alleged involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case and in the said case, when it has ended in acquittal, the order is liable to be quashed.

The learned Government Advocate would however contend that though at the point when the name of the petitioner was included in the rowdy register, the case registered was the basis and the mere acquittal in the case cannot be the basis to seek deletion. By referring to the objection statement, it is pointed out that dehors the said criminal case, if the conduct answers Order No. 1059, the same would be sufficient to continue the name in the rowdy register. The learned Government Advocate in that regard has relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.M. Muniswamy Reddy and another v. State of Karnataka and others, 1992 (3) Kar. L.J. 301 (DB) : ILR 1992 Kar. 2543 (DB), wherein, this position had been emphasised.

Having taken note of the content ions, there is no dispute to the fact that if a person is held to be of the conduct which is indicated in Order No. 1059 of the Police Manual, it would be open for the authorities to apply their mind and pass appropriate orders to include'' the name of the person in the rowdy register.

In the instant case, there can be no doubt that at the point when the order was made to include the name of the petitioner in the rowdy register, the basis was the case in Crime No. 472 of 2002 which had been registered at that point in time. Presently, though the petitioner had been acquitted in the said case, the same by itself cannot be a basis for deletion of the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list if the subsequent conduct of the petitioner is of the nature as contained in Order No. 1059. On this aspect of the matter, it is the satisfaction of the authority which is required to be recorded before including the name in the rowdy register.

Therefore, the order impugned by itself would not be the basis to come to a conclusion with regard to the nature of the activities of a person, so as to come to a conclusion as to whether the same should be continued in the rowdy register or not. Such decision in any event is ultimately to be taken by the Competent Authority and when the Higher Officers in that regard are given the powers to review the rowdy register notwithstanding the entries contained in the police station, all records would be taken into consideration by the higher authorities and thereafter, a conclusion would be taken as to whether the name is to be continued in the rowdy register or not. If these aspects of the matter are kept in view, the decision as relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be made squarely applicable only because the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case. At the same time, the continuation of the name of a person in the rowdy register even if the need for doing so does not subsist also would not be justified.

If this aspect of the matter is kept in view and the contents of the objection statement are taken into consideration, no doubt, the conduct sought to be explained therein is of the nature as indicated in Order No. 1059. Even if that be the position, what is also to be kept in view is that sufficient time has elapsed since then and the requirement is also that the review is required to be made annually to find out as to whether the name of the person is to be continued in the rowdy register or not.

If that be the position, the order dated 25-3-2011 at this stage would be inconsequential since, a consideration is required to be made by the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Division by securing all materials and to lake a decision as to whether there is any justification to continue the name of the petitioner in the rowdy register. Then fore, the challenge to the order dated 25-3-2011 by itself would not answer the situation.

In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the appropriate course would be to permit the petitioner to make a representation to the Deputy Commissioner of Police seeking deletion of his name from the rowdy register. The Deputy Commissioner of Police shall secure all records from the concerned authorities, take stock of the entire situation and thereafter come to a conclusion as to whether name of the petitioner is required to be continued in the rowdy register or appropriate direction is to be issued to the Subordinate Officers to delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy register. Such consideration would be made by the Deputy Commissioner of Police through a considered order with reasons therefor. The consideration in any event shall be made as expeditiously as possible but, not later than two months from the date on which the representation is made by the petitioner.